justifying ISA?

If you could just see facts flat-on, without that horrible moral squint… With a little common sense you could have made a statesman.

[Man for All Seasons]

So, according to Penang’s UMNO assemblymen, ISA is not against ‘nahi mungkar’ because – and I quote – “ISA was legislated to bring good and not evil” and that “it was used to control undesirable things.”

I wonder who decides what those “undesirable things” exactly are and “undesirable” to who actually? I sure would like to see the UMNO assemblymen spend a day or two under ISA detention to see whether any good can come out of it.

If the supposed threat presented by a particular individual or group to national security is clear and obvious, then why do you have to invoke the ISA? Why not charge the individual and allow him to stand trial, if indeed there is overwhelmingly clear evidence of the supposed threat posed by the individual?

If the ISA is meant as a preventative law which allows suspected individuals to be locked up, then why are there still several ISA detainees who have been languishing in Kamunting for several years? Does it take years and years for the security services to build up a case against the individual, especially if individual were detained on the premise that he/she presented a clear and immediate threat? Doesn’t the delay then imply an absence of evidence and therefore a reason to detain these individuals any longer?

I personally think that the ISA occupies a very grey (not to mention dubious) area in terms of legal enforcements and justification. And precisely because it is so ambigious that extreme care has to be taken to ensure accountability of intent and practice is fulfilled along the way.

Its ambiguity should not therefore be construed as a reason for a reckless and arbitrary implementation and enforcement of ISA (which is something the government has taken to do).

And its ambiguity is definitely not a carte blanche’ for the government to indiscriminately detain those who disagree with its position under the guise of preserving national security.

The implementation or enforcement of the ISA require someone with a humble soul and a subtle mind, not someone who cannot stomach disagreements or opposition to their rule.